Author Topic: Ingmar Bergman  (Read 43621 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #60 on: November 14, 2003, 03:42:47 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
I've seen 7th Seal and Wild Strawberries.

I'm gonna hit IB hard next year. Where should I start? Cries/Whispers, or the new CC trilogy set? Or somewhere else? I've seen clips of Fanny And Alexander, and it doesn't look that interesting to me. Also, I saw his son's movie (Sunday's Children, or something) and thought it was pretty terrible.

Anyway...


If you haven't seen Persona, that's his most major accomplishment. Almost any of his films are well worth watching, and most are very, very good.

I completely disagree with GT that Bergman's films are anything but cinematic. I don't think it should be judged on how populated the frame is, nor by how much the camera moves; Bergman uses the camera to compose shots- with light, with blocking, with color- in a completely singular way that demands at least to be called photographic (which I would definitely say is also cinematic), much more so than any theater piece could ever be.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #61 on: November 14, 2003, 03:53:32 PM »
0
Okay, so I'll go with Cries And Whispers, and then Persona. If I like 'em, I'll blind buy the new CC box set...

merci guys
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #62 on: November 14, 2003, 03:59:13 PM »
0
Did anyone catch the completely random, completely incongruous mention of "Ingmar Bergman" in a knock-knock joke on this week's South Park (the "Casa Bonita" episode)?
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #63 on: November 15, 2003, 02:11:44 AM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Quote from: SHAFTR
What about the very opening and closing shots of Persona.  When you see filmstrip running and the camera turn around and show the crew...that is cinematic.  Also in Persona, he uses the landscape of the beach much as the same way Antonioni uses the landscape in L'Avventura.  Same goes for The Seventh Seal.


Like I said, I agreed with you on the parts of Persona dealing with the wild imagery, film strip part included. I don't think for a second though he uses landscape the same way Antonioni does. Antonioni dramatized his entire movie by the effect of the environment on the characters. Persona doesn't really seem to hinder on its environment for drama more than just provide the idea - these two women share a house together and they must get along. Again, the environment is as small as it would be in a play. Very few scenes happen outside the house. Other than the actress running away in tears along the beach with the waves crashing, I don't see much reliance on environment the same way Antonioni uses it. All the other outside scenes seem very convential.

The Seventh Seal is another story. I'm not going to argue for it. It does use the camera for allegory, which is cinematic. I also believe The Seventh Seal is Bergman still very much a beginner. Many of the points in his film feel pretensious because it feels like only the camera really is giving us the symbolism for drama. It doesn't make us feel the drama.


Well, I see your point and you see mine.  We just differ with opinions.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5781
  • Respect: +166
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #64 on: November 15, 2003, 10:37:00 PM »
0
Quote from: godardian
I completely disagree with GT that Bergman's films are anything but cinematic. I don't think it should be judged on how populated the frame is, nor by how much the camera moves; Bergman uses the camera to compose shots- with light, with blocking, with color- in a completely singular way that demands at least to be called photographic (which I would definitely say is also cinematic), much more so than any theater piece could ever be.


We may have different ideas of "cinematic"

Maybe you also are seeing me on the wrong terms. I'm not saying Bergman is simply trying to replicate theatre on film, but convey the effect of theatre on film. This allows for his films to be very photogenic, which they are.

An example is The Magic Flute where a Mozart Opera takes place in what seems to be Bergman filming just a play. What Bergman did was made an exact replication of the theatre in which the play originally debuted in and his difference is that the effects are of a film studio. Bergman is trying to heighten the effects of the play with new film studio effects while still keeping it as a filming of a play. Aesthetic reasons for this is the pure artificiality of opera and the innocence of the story as Bergman demonstrates when he has a child continually shown through out the film to get her reaction - a child that was Bergman's own.

Now to connect my point, when Bergman makes Cries and Whispers, he is making a film, but he is applying many of the techniques of theatre into his films. The camera movement is mininumalist because his films are for the actors. Theatre is also for the actors. The films stay in very close quarters so to give the location a sense of presence and also make the actors more personal to the audience. Same is with theatre. The exception is, and I will agree you and say I did mispeak a bit, is that theatre does not have the production values shown in his films. The Magic Flute, which was a play, didn't either. But, this also lends truth to what I did say Bergman's purpose was:

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
His main purpose is conveying the effect of theatre on film.


I also could have said it as conveying the intended effect of theatre on film. Bergman does heighten effects, but maybe to acquire the closer personal feeling that film brings when it utilizes all its power. So, in a way, I do re-allign my original position but also keep firm in Bergman acting through his medium of film by trying to heighten the effect of theatre. That just could be seen as cinematic, as well. I was figuring more Kurosawa when thinking "cinematic".

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #65 on: November 15, 2003, 11:13:32 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Quote from: godardian
I completely disagree with GT that Bergman's films are anything but cinematic. I don't think it should be judged on how populated the frame is, nor by how much the camera moves; Bergman uses the camera to compose shots- with light, with blocking, with color- in a completely singular way that demands at least to be called photographic (which I would definitely say is also cinematic), much more so than any theater piece could ever be.


We may have different ideas of "cinematic"

Maybe you also are seeing me on the wrong terms. I'm not saying Bergman is simply trying to replicate theatre on film, but convey the effect of theatre on film. This allows for his films to be very photogenic, which they are.

An example is The Magic Flute where a Mozart Opera takes place in what seems to be Bergman filming just a play. What Bergman did was made an exact replication of the theatre in which the play originally debuted in and his difference is that the effects are of a film studio. Bergman is trying to heighten the effects of the play with new film studio effects while still keeping it as a filming of a play. Aesthetic reasons for this is the pure artificiality of opera and the innocence of the story as Bergman demonstrates when he has a child continually shown through out the film to get her reaction - a child that was Bergman's own.

Now to connect my point, when Bergman makes Cries and Whispers, he is making a film, but he is applying many of the techniques of theatre into his films. The camera movement is mininumalist because his films are for the actors. Theatre is also for the actors. The films stay in very close quarters so to give the location a sense of presence and also make the actors more personal to the audience. Same is with theatre. The exception is, and I will agree you and say I did mispeak a bit, is that theatre does not have the production values shown in his films. The Magic Flute, which was a play, didn't either. But, this also lends truth to what I did say Bergman's purpose was:

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
His main purpose is conveying the effect of theatre on film.


I also could have said it as conveying the intended effect of theatre on film. Bergman does heighten effects, but maybe to acquire the closer personal feeling that film brings when it utilizes all its power. So, in a way, I do re-allign my original position but also keep firm in Bergman acting through his medium of film by trying to heighten the effect of theatre. That just could be seen as cinematic, as well. I was figuring more Kurosawa when thinking "cinematic".


I think the fact that Bergman is a huge, huge user of the Close Up would show that he is a cinematic director, not a theatrical.  The Close Up is really the main thing that seperates cinema from theatre.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5781
  • Respect: +166
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #66 on: November 15, 2003, 11:19:47 PM »
0
Quote from: SHAFTR
I think the fact that Bergman is a huge, huge user of the Close Up would show that he is a cinematic director, not a theatrical.  The Close Up is really the main thing that seperates cinema from theatre.


If following what I just said, I don't think so. I think Bergman is trying to convey the intended effect of theatre on film. Whether theatre may have a physical separation of the actor and the audience, it is still attempting to bring the audience as close as it can to the actors. Bergman's fondness for the close up may be the realization of that close up some people may feel while watching a play. They are at a distance from the actors, but the power of performance allows them to really feel it as if it were much closer. Thus, the intended effect of theatre.

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #67 on: November 15, 2003, 11:25:38 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Quote from: SHAFTR
I think the fact that Bergman is a huge, huge user of the Close Up would show that he is a cinematic director, not a theatrical.  The Close Up is really the main thing that seperates cinema from theatre.


If following what I just said, I don't think so. I think Bergman is trying to convey the intended effect of theatre on film. Whether theatre may have a physical separation of the actor and the audience, it is still attempting to bring the audience as close as it can to the actors. Bergman's fondness for the close up may be the realization of that close up some people may feel while watching a play. They are at a distance from the actors, but the power of performance allows them to really feel it as if it were much closer. Thus, the intended effect of theatre.


What is the intended effect of cinema?
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5781
  • Respect: +166
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #68 on: November 15, 2003, 11:29:29 PM »
0
Quote from: SHAFTR
What is the intended effect of cinema?


I don't know. That's so widespread of a question. I am accepting Bergman as cinematic in what he does to heighten theatre drama (it has to require cinematic skills to do so), but is that question sticking to the specific topic or getting general?

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #69 on: November 17, 2003, 09:19:40 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Quote from: SHAFTR
What is the intended effect of cinema?


I don't know. That's so widespread of a question. I am accepting Bergman as cinematic in what he does to heighten theatre drama (it has to require cinematic skills to do so), but is that question sticking to the specific topic or getting general?


GT, my question was intended to see how you think theatrical/cinematic differ.

I just saw Bergman's Brink of Life and I do see your theatrical point.  His films have a rather small location and the acting really drives the film.  Although, Bergman uses cinematic techniques to convey subjectivity:  playing with focus, POV shots, extreme close ups.

He obviously has theatrical qualities but I still find him to be quite cinematic.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #70 on: November 17, 2003, 10:04:05 PM »
0
Quote from: SHAFTR
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Quote from: SHAFTR
What is the intended effect of cinema?


I don't know. That's so widespread of a question. I am accepting Bergman as cinematic in what he does to heighten theatre drama (it has to require cinematic skills to do so), but is that question sticking to the specific topic or getting general?


GT, my question was intended to see how you think theatrical/cinematic differ.

I just saw Bergman's Brink of Life and I do see your theatrical point.  His films have a rather small location and the acting really drives the film.  Although, Bergman uses cinematic techniques to convey subjectivity:  playing with focus, POV shots, extreme close ups.

He obviously has theatrical qualities but I still find him to be quite cinematic.


This is an interesting discussion. GT's fuller explanation allows me to see more of where he was coming from without entirely agreeing with him still.

It seems as though you're saying, GT, that the cinema, with its extensive palette of techniques to manipulate the performer/audience relationship, is actually finishing the job that theatre could only, with its limited mediations between the actor and the audience, begin? That's an interesting view, though I'm sure many theatre fans/critics would have fits of disagreement (I can take or leave the theatre, myself, though I have enjoyed most theatre experiences I've had).
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #71 on: November 18, 2003, 02:02:42 AM »
0
I originally thought that GT meant 'canned theatre' when he said theatrical.  After explanation, I understand his point.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

NEON MERCURY

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
  • Respect: +16
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #72 on: January 21, 2004, 09:44:24 AM »
0
......Hello?.......


...i need some opinions, insights, kinnd words, etc....on ingmar's Persona....



 SPOILERS

..the 'basic' plot.....yes?.....wierd lynnchiann, surrealistic opening-lady cann't sing-she goes into hospital-nnurse helps her out and takes her to a island-nurse talks and talks while the 'shy' one listens-nurse tells beach story-nurse is about to throw hot water but the sans talk lady says "No!!!!"-more wierd stuff-identity changes???-more wierd stuff-THE END.....


help.......i liked it..... but didn't get it..........the film gives off a cool vibe....

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #73 on: January 21, 2004, 10:53:21 AM »
0
Quote from: NEON MERCURY
......Hello?.......


...i need some opinions, insights, kinnd words, etc....on ingmar's Persona....



 SPOILERS

..the 'basic' plot.....yes?.....wierd lynnchiann, surrealistic opening-lady cann't sing-she goes into hospital-nnurse helps her out and takes her to a island-nurse talks and talks while the 'shy' one listens-nurse tells beach story-nurse is about to throw hot water but the sans talk lady says "No!!!!"-more wierd stuff-identity changes???-more wierd stuff-THE END.....


help.......i liked it..... but didn't get it..........the film gives off a cool vibe....
\

Buy/check out this book- it has an excellent, lengthy, in-depth essay entitled "Bergman's Persona:

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +281
Re: Ingmar Bergman
« Reply #74 on: January 21, 2004, 11:06:22 AM »
0
http://www.sun-times.com/ebert/greatmovies/persona.html

That might to clear a few things up too, Neon.

Thanks for the book plug, godardian. I'm going to order that.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy